masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Congratulations on the new policy change
Now that the Wiki has ruled that people saying so on the BSN constitutes a valid source, we have users adding information that is obviously wrong based on what anyone can test in the game itself. Congratulations. To hell with factual accuracy! :Hmm, I think he is being sarcastic Bluegear93 (talk) 20:42, May 30, 2013 (UTC) Would it be wrong of me to say that I don't necessarily disagree with this?--Legionwrex (talk) 20:43, May 30, 2013 (UTC) :Maybe, I don't know. Bluegear93 (talk) 20:45, May 30, 2013 (UTC) ::No. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 11:40, May 31, 2013 (UTC) When something is "obviously wrong" it should be brought to everyone's attention - talk page or whatever - so it can be corrected and removed, just like with anything. If it's newly added information, you're even entitled to just revert it if you want to challenge it w/ an explanation in the history comments, though obviously be prepared for a talk page discussion to follow, or start one yourself alongside the revert for maximum pro-activeness. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:49, May 30, 2013 (UTC) :Similarly, I'd like to see an example of factual accuracy going out the window. As far as I can tell, factual accuracy is going up. And whomever is complaining doesn't understand the provisions of the policy change, as we've already had a discussion on Lljsdk's talk page already about one kind of edit. (Thelee (talk) 20:50, May 30, 2013 (UTC)) ::Also, whomever this user is, their IP indicates that they're going around needlessly (or baselessly) reverting my edits in a very hostile fashion. (Thelee (talk) 20:55, May 30, 2013 (UTC)) The basis is that you're simply using people saying things as a source for any information you want to add, even when the information is just plain wrong. And that's not even getting into how you're screwing with how power pages are formatted, screwing up how text is arranged, and then using the previous pages you've screwed with as justification to screw with further pages. You're ruining this wiki by completely derailing how things have always been done simply because you want to add unverified crap. If you have no interest in doing things the way that this wiki has always done things, then get lost. :Just because you disagree with the policy change doesn't give you the blanket right to hostilely revert all my edits without providing an actual reason (especially since some of these "unreliable sources" are actually devconfirmed statements, if you bothered to look). And the fact that you've used two different anonymous IPs to post suggests you're a total coward. (Thelee (talk) 04:15, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) ::And as for the formatting change, I've talked this over with Commdor, who is an admin by the way. (Thelee (talk) 04:15, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) To any users here who care about this site presenting confirmed information: Undo every edit that this goddamned clown makes where his source is nothing more than some jackass on the BSN saying that it's so. Undo every edit where he rearranges information that was already stated on the page, then uses those edits as justification to screw with the layout of other pages. If you care about how this site has ALWAYS operated as opposed to this idiot who wants to twist everything to HIS liking, then stand in his way whenever you get the chance. :*sigh* I'm starting to see why this wiki is a joke on BSN, wy peddroelmz and corlist don't bother with the wiki anymore and why, when I asked corlist on BSN to chime in on the policy page to explain direct memory scanning he literally told me he couldn't be bothered with the wiki anymore, and explicitly cited things Lilyheartsliara was saying. Among the "jackass on the BSN"'s I'm citing includes Eric Fagnan (bioware developer), Chris Schanche (bioware developer) and corlist/peddroelmz (the pair who use direct memory scanning and actually helped bioware find bugs). I'll keep up with the reverts for a while, but fortunately a wiki means that even if I give up, if some admin wants to step in, my edits will be forever stored in the page history. (Thelee (talk) 04:42, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) ::To put it frankly, the majority of people on other sites I'm on think that the BSN is full of idiots. I'm going to sit this one out, just because of disbelief that this stupid "because some schmuck on the BSN said so" policy actually passed. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 11:40, May 31, 2013 (UTC) :::Strictly speaking, this policy proposal hasn't even impacted a majority of my edits yet, since most of them so far source a developer on BSN, so they still would have been valid in the old system. The fact that you or anyone would automatically presume everything from BSN to just be inaccurate is, well, bigotry. I mean, what makes the information on this wiki so accurate? Because it's not, and that was the point of the policy proposal. (Thelee (talk) 15:03, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) ::::When you cite damage modifiers against various protections, do you source developers? Yes. But looking at the Overload page, none of the cited references are from developers. Sentry Turret? Not developers. In fact, the BSN poster claims that "The default gun fires in bursts of 3 shots at around 2.5 seconds intervals" and you used that as a source to say that the Sentry Turret fires a burst exactly every 2.5 seconds. Snap Freeze? Not a developer. And to be frank, I wouldn't consider anyone simply saying anything on any site to be a valid source of information, especially when it comes to potential bugs. The BSN is not automatically a trustworthy source of information. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 17:27, May 31, 2013 (UTC) :::::Yes, Overload, Sentry Turret, and Snap Freeze all source information that do not come from developers. However, if you refer to the policy proposal, they all source information that is extensively tested (frequently by many users), and IIRC all by either peddroelmz and corlist, who use devconfirmed methodology (direct memory scanning). If you think an edit overstated or misstated the test results, feel free to edit it (as has already occurred by I believe Trandra with an edit I made to Dark Channel which cited a source—I freely admit—that I had I read incorrectly). :::::And yes, the BSN is not automatically a trustworthy source. That's why the policy proposal outlines several guidelines for discriminating between random poster X on BSN who says "I THINK OVERLOAD INSTAKILLS GETH" and serious poster Y who discusses repeatable, verifiable test data with other users. :::::And also for that matter, this wiki is not automatically a trustworthy source, and frankly neither is the in-game text. The only way we can verify any thing is if we have a solid foundation of repeatable, verifiable test data. If you think the test data is wrong, you should be prepared to counter it with evidence (as Lkjdsf did with an edit I made to sabotage). (Thelee (talk) 17:38, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) ::::::I have seen no effort of wiki users to verify this information or repeat these tests in any way before it is posted on the site. And that's the problem I have with this policy. :::::::Well, I have two related questions for you: 1) what makes editors on this wiki more of an arbiter of truth than on BSN (or any other site for that matter)? 2) what makes test data on BSN less important than test data here? Also, it would behoove you to sign your comments. (Thelee (talk) 17:53, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) ::::::::For that matter, both corlist and peddroelmz on BSN also are users on this wiki, so we can effectively consider them mass effect wiki users anyway. (Thelee (talk) 17:54, May 31, 2013 (UTC)) :Mr. Hostile Anon... you're probably not exactly creating sympathy for your point of view through your loudly bolded and/or all-cappsed words. We've always accepted statements from BioWare developers "even on BSN" and I suppose even if they're a "jackass". And a policy affirming the use of direct memory scanning was approved by a strong (though not unanimous) majority. Finally, I'm not sure where all the reverting and re-reverting stands right now policy-wise, but your last post e.g. "stand in his way whenever you get the chance" sure seems like an incitement to edit warring which is hardly constructive. Cattlesquat (talk) 04:52, May 31, 2013 (UTC) ::Mr rage anon, this new policy have been discussed, voted and approved by a majority, if you want to change that, you have to launch a vote for a withdrawal or an amendment of the policy instead of doing rage undo on every edit. In on word, just act as the site as ALWAYS operated. --DeldiRe 07:06, May 31, 2013 (UTC)